AP HC Quotes Dowry Prohibition Act In Judgment: 2005 - IPC 498A

within the definition of 'dowry'. Section 4 prescribes the penalty for
demanding dowry. The allegations in the complaint, in so far as petitioners 1
and 2 (Accused 2 and 3) are concerned, if accepted as true, do attract the
ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is
considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned
Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition
Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after
the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition
Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed
before expiry of one year. It cannot, however be lost sight of that giving of
property or valuable security at any time after the marriage also falls within
the definition of "dowry" and any person who either takes or abets the taking of
dowry or directly or indirectly demands dowry is liable to be punished for
offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. From which date
is this period of limitation of one year required to be computed is the question
which would arise; for consideration. As held in Minu Kumari7, the High Court
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
produced before the Court and the issues involved are of magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without adequate material. The question whether
the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are barred by
limitation is a matter for the trial court to examine, in case a charge sheet is
filed after completion of investigation, and not for this Court to examine in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Suffice to state that this is not one of
the rarest of rare cases where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to stifle an investigation into the complaint. The judgment
of the Apex Court, in Ruchi Agarwal1, was not a case under Section 482 Cr.P.C
and as such has no application.
There are no specific allegations in the complaint against the 3rd petitioner
(4th accused). While the 1st accused is alleged to have contracted marriage,
with the complainant, with a view to go to the U.S.A along with the 3rd
petitioner, (the 4th accused), there are no specific allegations against the 3rd
petitioner, (Accused No.4), of his having committed any of the offences under
Sections 417, 418, 420, 498-A and 506 I.P.C. or under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint in Crime No.31 of 2005, of Samalkot Police
Station, East Godavari District, in so far as petitioner No.3, (4th accused), is
concerned, is quashed.
In so far as Petitioners 1 and 2, (Accused 2 and 3), are concerned the
complaint in Crime No.31 of 2005 of Samalkot Police Station, in so far as they
are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 506 I.P.C, is quashed.
The Criminal Petition, in so far as Petitioners 1 and 2, (Accused 2 and 3), are
alleged to have committed offences under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 498-A IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is dismissed.
It is made clear that dismissal of the criminal petition would not preclude the
petitioners herein from availing such remedies as are open to them in law after
the matter has been investigated into and, in case, a charge sheet is filed.